6th Circuit

Pretrial detainee in withdrawal from alcohol or drugs with severe vomiting and diarrhea, treated only with two doses of antiemetics prescribed by fax by doctor who never saw him died five days after arrest; court reviews impact of Kingsley on standard and concludes elements for pretrial detainee’s claim are now: “(1) that [plaintiff] had a sufficiently serious medical need and (2) that each defendant acted deliberately (not accidentally), [and] also recklessly in the face of an unjustifiably high risk of harm that is either known or so obvious that it should be known”;

Deploying dog against domestic violence suspect not excessive, where officers warned suspect dog would bite and suspect ran to house where weapons were stored; failure to use tasers did not render use of dog excessive, “Fourth Amendment does not require officers to use the best technique available as long as their method is reasonable under the circumstances”; use of deadly force against suspect after he picked up pistol was not excessive.

In suit by police and union representative, court holds city’s policy of not allowing private recording or videotaping interviews in city investigations into police misconduct did not violate First Amendment; prohibition on recording speech is not a prohibition on speaking; freedom of the press right of access to information does not require government to open all proceedings to public; officers’ appearance at interviews is a legitimate condition of employment and nonrecording policy rationally furthers a legitimate government interest.

Officials who testified at depositions in civil case did not waive Fifth Amendment privilege at trial in same case.

Assuming plaintiff did not actively resist arrest, taking him to ground, beating him, and fracturing his wrist would violate clearly establish rights and foreclose qualified immunity.

One has the right to be free from physical force and use of taser when one is not actively resisting police.

Plaintiff sufficiently alleged subjective prong of claim under 8th Amendment for failure to protect prisoner from widespread presence of drugs at state prison, based on claim that prisoner’s risk of death from fentanyl was obvious to warden, warden’s assistant, and two inspectors, because in days immediately preceding prisoner’s death two other prisoners in unit of 12 -16 prisoners had overdosed.

Absence of knowledge of identity of corrections officer who allegedly orchestrated a drug smuggling ring at prison was not a “mistake” regarding officer’s identity, as would allow claims against officer to relate back for limitations purposes under FRCP 15(c)(1)(c)).

Claim for failing to provide medical care for knee injury suffered during arrest by first taking plaintiff to jail rather than hospital and relying on jail nurse’s opinion that injury did not require further attention was governed by 14th Amendment’s due process clause, not 4th Amendment; claim was based on period after arrest, but before finding of probable cause.

Officers demanded that woman escort them to examine cattle on the property, refused to wait until her husband returned home, woman was “seized” within meaning of Fourth Amendment; court denies qualified immunity; “cases clearly establish that forced compliance with orders is a Fourth Amendment seizure.